Breached BY THE CSA and then he joins the CSA? That's a funny sort of neutrality...
What would you say of a Belgian politician who wanted neutrality between France and Germany, but once Germany invaded, joined the German side?
WI: President John C. Breckinridge
- Thread starter Reagent
- Start date
Breached BY THE CSA and then he joins the CSA? That's a funny sort of neutrality...
What would you say of a Belgian politician who wanted neutrality between France and Germany, but once Germany invaded, joined the German side?
Wasn't the governor of Kentucky at the time pro-confederate? I mean, he hired Breckenridge as an advisor, Breckenridge may have adivsed neutrality, but that did nothing to stop thousands of Kentuckians heading south into Tennessee or north into Illinois/Ohio to join the Union and Confederate armies respectively.
If the French were going around arresting Belgians for 'dangerous loyalties' in 1914 I'd not be overly surprised. Just because the Union was the good guys on the bigger picture doesn't mean they were all puppies and sunshine.
usertron2020
Donor
Wait-a-minute...are you seriously suggesting that a Discussion Thread over choosing "North versus South" constitutes a political discussion in the Year of our Lord 2015!?
I would have thought that issue was decided at Appomattox. Or at least with the death of the Dunning Thesis.Breckenridge, along with Governor Magoffin, wanted Kentucky to condemn both Confederates and Federals for breeching Kentucky's neutrality and demand both withdraw from Kentuckian territory. Kentucky only condemned the Confederacy and demand they withdraw while welcoming the Federals. Soon after this his own state put out an arrest warrant for him and he was forced to flee South.
It might be true that he was more sympathetic to the South than the North - however much of a Unionist he may have been regardless - but its not as if he didn't have just cause to flee to the South. The US Senate had turned against him and treated him with contempt and suspicion simply because he opposed war and wanted to seek a diplomatic solution to the dispute, while his own State Legislature called him a traitor because he had counciled neutrality while sympathising with the South. Had he not gone South he would have been arrested and spent the next few year imprisoned, simply because he didn't agree with the Government and didn't want Kentucky dragged into a war.
When you think about it that's kind of a meaningless phrase.
I mean thinking about it, since there was a war and everything pretty much everyone that survived could say yeah, they were lucky they didn't die or get shot. Except the people that actually did get shot, you know.
No, not with retrospect.
Breckinridge could legitimately be called a traitor with hindsight because he took up arms for the Confederacy but in the winter of 1860/61 and prior to Kentucky's neutrality being violated his only "crime" was being a peace advocate and calling for democracy to be used to settle the dispute.
Those who considered him a traitor prior to his enlistment in the Army of the Confederacy, those who regarded his words and action in the US Senate in 1860 and in Kentucky the next year with supicion and contempt, did so not because he was offering aid to the Confederacy or because he was working against the United States, they did so simply because he didn't support waging war, spoke out openly against it, and attempted to keep his state out of it.
He became a traitor because events forced him to pick a side and he sympathized more with the South - and if he'd stayed in the North anyway he would have been labled a traitor and imprissoned for the forseeable future - but prior to joining the Confederacy himself he had done nothing that could justify that title be attributed to him.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Wait-a-minute...are you seriously suggesting that a Discussion Thread over choosing "North versus South" constitutes a political discussion in the Year of our Lord 2015!?
Far too many threads about the Civil War fall apart because many posters get heated up and simply start posting about how much they hate the Confederacy and everyone involved in it. I think that kind of thing should be in Chat, so that actual history can be discussed in the regular forums.
I personally think that such topics belong in other threads in Before 1900. After all, there's no way talking about a nation that was liberated one hundred and fifty years ago constitutes a political discussion.
This thread however, is for the scenario if Breckinridge was president, not the fact that the Confederacy was an evil and horrific state.
I think that Breckinridge would be as horrible as Buchanan, or maybe worse. He would also be forced to make several of the same decisions. After all, he still would be a sitting duck president.
Turning over forts to Confederate authorities would have made it harder for Lincoln to have anything like Fort Sumter. However, this might have prevented several border states from succeeding, and thus shortened the war.
Otl, the work that Breckenridge did in 1865, particularly behind the scenes conversations with Lee and Johnston to lay the groundwork for surrender rather than the continued guerilla resistance Jeff Davis advocated saved thousands of lives and untold suffering.
He was, bluntly, heroic and a heck of a lot more nuaced than the "all confederates are evil traitors" crowd is suggesting.
Otl, the work that Breckenridge did in 1865, particularly behind the scenes conversations with Lee and Johnston to lay the groundwork for surrender rather than the continued guerilla resistance Jeff Davis advocated saved thousands of lives and untold suffering.
He was, bluntly, heroic and a heck of a lot more nuaced than the "all confederates are evil traitors" crowd is suggesting.
No slaveholder is heroic unless they free their slaves. However, as you're saying, Breckinridge was much better than his contemporaries, although I think Lee would surrender in his clean way even without Breckinridge's influence. Also, you're right that not all Confederates were evil traitors, as seen as the heroism of General Longstreet.
I think that some border states would secede regardless, as they were just waiting for an excuse to secede. An alternate Bull Run or Philippi would lead to secession, although Virginia may not secede and Maryland may, considering how close the votes were for their respective decisions.